re: Amazon panorama prog

[who_1976]

Just wondering what people thought about the Amazon Panorama programme on BBC1 the other night?

[ryansbits]

"judging by your comments, you'll fall for it"

What else do we have to go by other than a manifesto when deciding whom to vote for? The problem is that non-voters get accused of apathy rather than indifference. 

I'm toying with the idea of just writing an obscenity over my ballot paper, they have to count void votes - I won't be labelled as apathetic then. 

"Labour nearly ruinined online trade and sent  huge companies to Jersey to explot a now closed vat loophole"

Only if you want to re-write history. The UK is in the European Union and obliged therefore to add VAT to certain goods and services, the Channel Islands is not. The VAT free threshold on goods under £18 from outside the EU was introduced in...... 1984. When our government was.....

Removing the LVCR from goods imported from the Channel Islands but keeping it for goods coming from the rest of the world (what the government has done) will just result in consumers importing products from other non-EU countries. It protects the CD, DVD and Computer game industry (where regions are implemented) but all three are going digital now anyway. This only serves to push more customers to buy directly from China, from places like eBay, where there remains no VAT applied to low value goods. 

The ultimate result in less revenue for Royal Mail and more revenue for China Post. The Labour government in 2006 concluded that they wouldn't abolish LVCR for the Channel Islands (which I reiterate, was a Tory introduction) because of the damage it would do to Royal Mail. In 2012 the Tory party abolished LVCR for the Channel Islands because they don't give a damn about the revenues or profits of a company that they have now sold off. 

Only fair that I point out the reality. 

"Labour opened the borders for European worker to come and work on the cheap" 

Errmm..... nope. It was a Conservative government which initially led us into this second coming of the USSR in 1973, it was a Conservative government that signed the Maastricht treaty in 1992, and the current Conservative government is about as Europhile as any of them. When we joined the EEC the promiment opposition to the free trade and free movement of labour area were Labour politicians - particularly Michael Foot and Tony Benn. Their opposition was largely based on the fact that British workers would be undercut, and they were right. The public ignored them. Real socialists, the people who have nothing to do with this new neo-liberal centre ground Labour Party (people like Bob Crow) are still against the European Union on this basis. If you are a conservative mate then you have a very socialist viewpoint there (Arthur Scargills party is Eurosceptic for this reason too), the 'free market' ideology sees high unemployment as a good thing - because it drives down the cost of labour. 

"So anything the Labour party have to stay positively on the subject, I would take with a very large gain of salt"

You seem to have it in your mind that I am a Labour voter / member, I am neither. I will probably be drawing a large **bleep** on my ballot paper - but that doesn't mean I want to see you rewrite history about the European Union or the LVCR.

[star-action-figures]

But when this treaty was signed and the VAT threshold set, there was very little trade like we started to see at the end of the 90s.

The internet was not dreamed of when this treaty was signed. If you wanted a DVD or cheaper priced item, you would you to HMV or Woolworths for it. With the rise of the internet, these and other companies went to Jersey to avoid VAT. The then labour government allowed it to happen. In the miux of all this, Amazon and ebay rose in the UK, and then Amazon went on to rule the market as eBay floundered. So while the Tories may have signed the trade deals, it was not them that sat back and allowed the newly formed internet to be used to abuse tax laws, in a way that was near impossible when the treaty was signed. Personally if I am to blame anyone, I would blame the party that allowed a law to be abused, rather than one that set the law in different times.

As I said earlier they are all as bad as each, but the issue at hand was these super centre and working conditions were allowed to flourish and where encourged to florish under the previous government. Anyway, we are off topic, As far I am concerned, the program not show Amazon up in nearly as bad as light as you suggest it is IMO, and thats why if it is as bad as you say, it was an opportunity lost. And if is it that bad, then I agree that the Tories should be held accountable for allowing it to continue, but from what I understand moves are afoot to address the issue of corporation like eBay, like Amazon, like Starbucks to avoid paying UK taxes, partically VAT. Time will tell.

[ryansbits]

star-action-figures, I presume that you sell your items overseas? 

And enjoy the benefits that are offered by almost every country in the world which see that no duty is paid on your exports under a certain value?

I mean.... when somebody from America purchases one of your action figures for £10, you appreciate the fact that this will typically fly through customs as under threshold with your customer not getting an invoice for that purchase? 

Or are you advocating protectionism, a world where we are all penalised for trading with eachother? I don't think that protectionism would be a very good thing. 

The Channel Islands was not special in this relationship, it had the same relationship as every other non-EU country. Now it is disadvantaged against every non-EU country because it is the only one which we don't give a low value VAT exemption to. 

I'm not sure how the treaty really relates in any way to the fact that countries have reduced trade tariffs over the past thirty years, because the EU saw trade tariffs abolished almost completely between EU member states..... of which the Channel Islands is not one.

I think that you are being heavily critical of something which you and I both benefit from. In my case immensely, as I don't pay import VAT on most of my stock (beneath the threshold) and I or my customers from overseas don't have to pay any export/import duty when sending an item.

You appear to have double standards. I mean, it is fine if you want your overseas customers to have to pay 15% or 20% extra for each of your products, but it would result in less sales - you don't really have much to gain from that. 

You call the Channel Islands VAT thing a "tax loophole", only it was never a loophole and you are showing a poor understanding. A VAT free threshold on imports into the UK is applied evenly throughout the non-EU world, and almost every other country in the world has a similar system.

Now if I buy something for £10 from China I pay £10, and if I buy something for £10 from the Channel Islands I pay £12. 

Only..... the Channel Islands is part of the UK, and China isn't, one contributes to our GDP and one doesn't. I can go and work in one without a work permit, I can't in the other. 

[ryansbits]

I agree that we need to tackle these big American corporations who don't pay any corporation tax on their UK profits, by the way. It is more of a corporation tax problem than a VAT one though. 

It was only low value stuff being shipped from Jersey and Guernsey VAT free. What are Starbucks delivering from the Channel Islands?

It will never change because both of the major parties are funded by the same wealthy CEOs and corporations who benefit from these huge grants and tax schemes. Most of our politicians come from big business families, or banking families. 

If you think they are ever going to act in your interests then you are wrong, they look after their own. 

[sheilaw1234]

if you want to work that many hours to make a living, working for a pitance thats ok, but most people would sooner work in a fairer environment, less hours so they can see there family more, and not end up on the scrap heap by wearing them selves out, if you think Uk should go the way of taiwan with everyone working long hours for a pitance thats your opinion..

theres nothing wrong with hard work but not for 12 hours a day..

ok if your young but not as you get older

[star-action-figures]

Completely agree. Tories, Labour, the other ramble, all as bad as each other. But if I had to pick one, I would pick one, it wouldn't be labour!!!

[star-action-figures]

---

@sheilaw1234 wrote:

if you want to work that many hours to make a living, working for a pitance thats ok, but most people would sooner work in a fairer environment, less hours so they can see there family more, and not end up on the scrap heap by wearing them selves out, if you think Uk should go the way of taiwan with everyone working long hours for a pitance thats your opinion..

theres nothing wrong with hard work but not for 12 hours a day..

ok if your young but not as you get older

---

Its everyones choice what they do. I work silly hours at this time of year for about 6 weeks. Rest of the year, its far far less, and usually only 4 days a week.

12 hours a day! A little long, but arent Amazon's 10.5 hours in shifts of 4 days? I may be wrong, but if they are thats 42 hours a week, 4 days on 3 days off.  I don't think the UK should go the way of Taiwan, but neither do I think 42 hours a week is excessive! If you think it is, that's your opinion. My opinion its not.

[sheilaw1234]

If the conditions are truely that bad (and I am not suggesting they are not) just in my opinion the program did not show this, then surely some government department should be involved. 

these the same law makers who allow amazon to have off shore tax havens to avoid paying tax?

how many politicians are there on the boards of these comapnies (hardly gonna bite the hand that feeds them)?

and remember tony blair, funny how hes done so well since he left his government office, what she worth now 40 million?

getting paid by all these big companies he turned a blind eye too when he was prime minister?

they say he charges £100,000 per speech, used to holiday with russian oligarths when he was in office?

don't bother to look to politicians they know where their breads buttered, they'll turn a blind eye to anythink as long as in benefits them personally.

[sheilaw1234]

tony blair used his stint in office to get well connected with the rich and powerful, and now hes being rewarded for it. I don't blame europeans coming to the UK (im born in UK) to seek a better life if i was in there shoes i would be doing the same, wasn't america founded on imigration?

When i was younger (im 45+) blue collar workers were losing jobs due to decline in the manufacturing industry amongst others, to robots and large machinery in factories etc, now i feel its the white collar workers who are losing there jobs due to technology, computers, better software, fewer people needed to operate systems , and people either through choice or necessity not retiring at 55-65 like they used to staying in there jobs, when i left school at 16 few people stayed on into further education (college / university) now young people are staying on until 18, more are staying on into college and uni, and when they come out more of them qualified than ever where are the jobs for them?, i see lots of low paid service industry jobs like hotel work, warehouse, shop etc but after coming out of uni with your hons degree/ masters etc do kids really want that at £6,31 an hour on a 0 hour contract?

imigration may be filling jobs but at what level?, at what jobs these service industry jobs?

i feel for the youngster, there not all lazy layabouts, but i feel a lot are disparing at what is happening, they deserve better than this, its bad enough them coming out of UNI with £30,000+ of debts, but wheres there future?

the government talks about youngsters should be putting into a pension, but with what?  how can they when they sign up for agencys on 0 hour contracts? how can they afford to put down a deposit for there own home?

i

[sheilaw1234]

i worked in a warehouse over the xmas period and wasn't given a choice, they told me what hours to work, when to work etc, the choice was do it or get sacked, i was on £6.31 an hour, there was no overtime pay as such it was £6.31 no matter how many hours you worked.

and the hours you work depend on the work your doing, sitting in an office 10+ hours a day no problem, 10+ hours a day walking up and down a warehouse (not for me), i think the biggest gripe ive got is the 0 hour contract.

[joe_bloggs*]

Amazon? sounds a bit like this place: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor

[bankhaunter]

The hours a person works are not that important when compared to how stressful the work is.

Treat employees as some form of organic machine, take away all autonomy and security then you have a recipe for stress, poor work and irregular work patterns.

I used to work a 12 hour night shift 5 nights a week and it was a matter of pride that the night shift would produce more than the day shift, we did it because we wanted to not because we had to, treat workers properly as an asset to the company and they will work well.

I was also among those on the day shift who after their 12 hours would do a cleaning job for a further 3 hours.

[al**bear]

Asda warehouses are much the same, agency staff, treated like draft animals

[who_1976]

Yes,I agree with you-hardwork and tam effort is rewarding for both employee and employer-Amazon has a well honed business model and it's profits show this-for example the kindle has changed the face of reading books (although it has also closed many book shops-who had falling sales and increased rents maybe)

I do think that you can't judge a companies employee conditions but just one programme-the BBC has it's own agenda too. But what did suprise me was the point system the had-I think it is just unfair and unrealistic and yes you are right is it legal?

For an example you may be sprain your ankle-happens a a lot in warehouse environment particlarly when you are moving quickly-I think people who work for Amazon might not say anything to avoid losing their jobs but comprimising thier health instead.

I should add that I am not a socialist or union person but believe this kind of working model is out dated-I mean is this 2013 or 1860??

[sheilaw1234]

Yes,I agree with you-hardwork and tam effort is rewarding for both employee and employer-Amazon has a well honed business model and it's profits show this-for example the kindle has changed the face of reading books (although it has also closed many book shops-who had falling sales and increased rents maybe)

really? if you think working hard for minimum wage is rewarding maybe you should try it!  for the company paying people peanuts and working them like dogs, and avoiding tax i can see how it is. they have a well honed business model ( well yes if you want to run a sweat shop, maybe you should move to talwan i hear the pay 10p an hour over there ill bet there employees working for next to nothing just to survive are very happy and feel rewarded? i have nothing against hard work but in this day and age people should be getting treated better isn't that why unions were introduced to stop these practices. i know unions were too powerful at one time and were ruining the country with there ridiculous demands, but now i feel its swung the other way and workers are being exploited, this is 2013 and people shouldent be worked like dogs.

I do think that you can't judge a companies employee conditions but just one programme-the BBC has it's own agenda too.

well how should we judge it?,  you ever worked in a warehouse?, its hardly that easy to get in and film whats going on? how many programmes do we need to watch on amazon you form an opinion?, i've heard from lots of people who have worked at amazon and most tell me how bad it is.

[who_1976]

Hi,

In reply to your comments-I will add I have worked in warehouses on both a permanent and temp contract from an agency back in the 90's. This was for a major London retailer who is famous for it's only one yearly sale-looking back the conditions were quite good we had a pick list and yes you had to be quick but that's fine and wee accepted it-the manager could be tough but he was a decent guy who had stresses on him from the upper managment-to be honest the job was ok and pay for that time ie )1999 was £7.oo ph.

Now back to Amazon I can only asses to mind that they hold a US type of business model with a clinical opproach to employment-aero hours contracts makes it easier for them to hire and fire at will-in short they hold all the aces. The employee really has little choice but to put up or walk away.  Now does this create good will amongs staff and the outside community -My answer would be it would not.

As a previous post stated that due to these areas industry being closed and not replaced-these areas are job hungry and Amazon like a hawk now this and exploit the situation to the full while also taking large subisdies from the government. They also hold the UK gov to ransom by holding the line if you make life difficult for us we will move to China and no jobs for you!

Now to conclude-is this the unacceptable face of free market enterprise where the profit no matter who small is the ultimate goal and people or just side lines-I think it is but I can't see people stopping there anytime soon.

[who_1976]

I have to admit I used to meet taxi drivers,plumbers, sparkies etc -who regularly work 60-70 hours a week over the x-mas period and even x-mas day-not uncommon.

[bankhaunter]

The difference is that such people have some control over their work.

If everything they did in their work was being controlled by other people watching them work and they were under pressure to do it as fast as possible, it would cause them high stress levels.

[who_1976]

Yes,I agree totally with you-no one can focus 100% on their role if there is constant pressure on you and a general tense environment-it's counterproductive for any business-I know this from personal experience.